Inductionless or limited shock testing is possible in most patients with implantable cardioverter- defibrillators/cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators: results of the multicenter ASSURE Study (Arrhythmia Single Shock Defibrillation Threshold Testing Versus Upper Limit of Vulnerability: Risk Reduction Evaluation With Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantations).

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators have relied on multiple ventricular fibrillation (VF) induction/defibrillation tests at implantation to ensure that the device can reliably sense, detect, and convert VF. The ASSURE Study (Arrhythmia Single Shock Defibrillation Threshold Testing Versus Upper Limit of Vulnerability: Risk Reduction Evaluation With Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantations) is the first large, multicenter, prospective trial comparing vulnerability safety margin testing versus defibrillation safety margin testing with a single VF induction/defibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 426 patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator underwent vulnerability safety margin or defibrillation safety margin screening at 14 J in a randomized order. After this, patients underwent confirmatory testing, which required 2 VF conversions without failure at < or = 21 J. Patients who passed their first 14-J and confirmatory tests, irrespective of the results of their second 14-J test, had their devices programmed to a 21-J shock for ventricular tachycardia (VT) or VF > or = 200 bpm and were followed up for 1 year. Of 420 patients who underwent 14-J vulnerability safety margin screening, 322 (76.7%) passed. Of these, 317 (98.4%) also passed 21-J confirmatory tests. Of 416 patients who underwent 14-J defibrillation safety margin screening, 343 (82.5%) passed, and 338 (98.5%) also passed 21-J confirmatory tests. Most clinical VT/VF episodes (32 of 37, or 86%) were terminated by the first shock, with no difference in first shock success. In all observed cases in which the first shock was unsuccessful, subsequent shocks terminated VT/VF without complication. CONCLUSIONS: Although spontaneous episodes of fast VT/VF were limited, there was no difference in the odds of first shock efficacy between groups. Screening with vulnerability safety margin or defibrillation safety margin may allow for inductionless or limited shock testing in most patients.

Amiodarone versus implantable cardioverter-defibrillator:randomized trial in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and asymptomatic nonsustained ventricular tachycardia--AMIOVIRT.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this multicenter randomized trial was to compare total mortality during therapy with amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM) and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT). BACKGROUND: Whether an ICD reduces mortality more than amiodarone in patients with NIDCM and NSVT is unknown. METHODS: One hundred three patients with NIDCM, left ventricular ejection fraction < or =0.35, and asymptomatic NSVT were randomized to receive either amiodarone or an ICD. The primary end point was total mortality. Secondary end points included arrhythmia-free survival, quality of life, and costs. RESULTS: The study was stopped when the prospective stopping rule for futility was reached. The percent of patients surviving at one year (90% vs. 96%) and three years (88% vs. 87%) in the amiodarone and ICD groups, respectively, were not statistically different (p = 0.8). Quality of life was also similar with each therapy (p = NS). There was a trend with amiodarone, as compared to the ICD, towards improved arrhythmia-free survival (p = 0.1) and lower costs during the first year of therapy ($8,879 US dollars vs. $22,039 US dollars, p = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality and quality of life in patients with NIDCM and NSVT treated with amiodarone or an ICD are not statistically different. There is a trend towards a more beneficial cost profile and improved arrhythmia-free survival with amiodarone therapy.

Occlusion of a saphenous vein graft aneurysm with a vein-covered stent.

A 67-year-old man was admitted with unstable angina, 15 years after saphenous vein graft bypass surgery. Cardiac catheterization demonstrated a large saccular aneurysm arising from the proximal segment of the vein graft to the obtuse marginal artery. Intravascular ultrasound revealed the opening of the aneurysm that measured 15 mm in length. The aneurysm was successfully occluded by deployment of a vein-covered stent.